The praise of matter / Materiality and its challenges in the field of Historic Monuments 2/2
“We only restore the material of a work of art”, specifies Cesare Brandi in his Theory of restoration. “The material of a work of art” is, according to Brandi, of a double nature, where one must distinguish the structure and the aspect. In other words, what constitutes the work of art and what it shows. It should therefore be considered as the core of the restoration process, which transforms the material and its temporality.
The ethics of restoration are governed by international charts, they all give a major place to the material. Nevertheless, the process of restoration aims at preserving historical heritage, for transmission. As such, it cannot be considered without other notions, such as aesthetics, senses, memory, functionality. Another approach of materiality also has to be considered regarding specific types of inheritage. The substance of historical gardens is, by definition, living, perishable and renewable, whereas scientific and technical inheritage is mainly defined by its function. Furthermore, scientific research as well as the plurality of international practices invite us to reconsider these principles. The relationship established in Japanese culture between intangible cultural heritage and tangible cultural heritage proves that other patterns can be accepted to transmit architectural inheritage. How should the substance of a work of art be defined? What has to be preserved and transmitted? If a work of art is brought to live, grow and die, what does one preserve? What should be the role of immateriality and sensitivity in the conservation-restoration process (for instance, harmony for an organ, light for stained-glass)?